Courts traditionally refuse to recognize aesthetic nuisances. The mere objection to the appearance of structures on neighboring property is insufficient to constitute a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land. Although some courts in recent years have recognized the possibility of an aesthetic nuisance, the Vermont Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the traditional rule when owners complained of ugly solar panels on neighboring property owned by companies that used the land to construct solar arrays. Myrick v. Peck Elec. Co., 2017 V. 4, 2017 Vt. LEXIS 4 (2017). "An unattractive sight — without more — is not a substantial interference as a matter of law because the mere appearance of the property of another does not affect a citizen's ability to use and enjoy his or her neighboring land." Id. at ¶5.